>>23938847

I've seen it said that when you are going about your day, at work or whatever, your "consciousness" of your environment is only about 5% real and the 95% of what you are experiencing is programming your subconscious mind learned when you were about 7-8 years old. This is why people cannot get out of self destructive, self sabotaging patterns regardless of how much self help they try, boredom sets in and the old programming kicks back up. Consider Milgram a program to instruct people to be SHEEP or CATTLE. Makes sense to me.

>>23938873

Could also be the reason they went after the old folks homes so hard, my grandmother lived until 103 year old, died last year, told me a lot about Spanish Flu pandemic and lived through aftermath. They (govt) didn't want people to recognize the same old thing they did 100 years ago.

>>23938920

>>23938921

I would guess every unvaxxed anon wouldn't do it

>>23938926

So because those things haven't happened yet, Trump is globohomo. Why didn't they use the pvc coffins and walmart roundups in 2021 then when FJB was allegedly scrabbling around the white house?

>>23938934

I take pleasure in how long its taking. :)

>>23938937

I wouldn't do either, you think these people are cognizant of how retarded they are?

95% of waking time is just subconscious autopilot programming from when they were 8 years old.

>>23938942

Show me an AI Video or it didn't happen.

>>23938952

Get them to send you an AI video to show me or its not happening.

>>23938954

I do not need to share your view to think that you would probably feel justified, and I have no problem with you shocking the fuckin nuts off them. Personally I wouldn't do it, its all I am saying.

>>23938980

Milgram’s work was partially funded by the National Science Foundation, but some researchers (e.g., author Naomi Wolf and others) point out that the behavioral-science community in the 1950s–60s was heavily intertwined with CIA and military psychological-warfare programs (MKUltra, Office of Naval Research, etc.). Techniques of obedience, compliance, and breakdown of individual moral resistance were of direct interest to intelligence agencies.

>>23938997

Highschool in the 1990s "conformist" was a slur

this is from grok AI when I asked about what makes people NOT comply

Here’s what actually predicts whether someone in a Milgram-style situation (or real-world equivalents) will refuse to comply and stop, based on the original data, partial replications, and the factors that consistently show up across decades of obedience research.Strongest individual-level predictors of disobedienceStrong internal locus of control

People who believe they—not authorities, not “the situation”—are ultimately responsible for their actions are far more likely to defy orders. In Milgram’s own notes, the defiant participants almost always said things like “I’m responsible for what I do” or “This is my decision.”

Moral identity centrality

If “being a good/person who doesn’t harm innocents” is core to someone’s self-concept, they resist. People who rank low on moral identity measures obey at much higher rates.

Prior experience questioning authority Nurses (in the 1960s–70s replications) defied fake doctors on the phone at ~90% rates.

People who grew up in authoritarian homes or religions and later rebelled are disproportionately defiant.

Ex-military and ex-cops sometimes obey more, sometimes less—it depends on whether they internalized or rejected institutional obedience culture.

Low need for social approval / high tolerance for confrontation

Defiant participants were willing to endure awkwardness, anger from the experimenter, and being seen as “the difficult one.” High agreeableness (Big Five personality) strongly predicts obedience.

Presence of a disobedient role model in the moment

This is the single biggest situational game-changer. When Milgram ran a variation with two confederate “teachers” who refused, obedience crashed from 65% to 10%. One visible dissenter is enough to give most people permission.

Situational factors that flip the switchPhysical or emotional distance from the victim: if the “learner” is in the same room and you can see/touch them, obedience drops to ~30%.

Proximity and legitimacy of the authority: if the experimenter leaves the room and gives orders by phone, obedience falls to 20%. If the authority figure is obviously illegitimate (random guy off the street), almost zero obedience.

Group presence: if even one peer says “this is wrong,” most people find the courage to stop.

The rare but real “natural rebels” (~2–5% in most studies)A tiny minority defy immediately and aggressively, even when completely alone against a high-status authority. These people typically combine:High moral identity

History of successful rebellion

Low neuroticism (they don’t care about social punishment)

Often a personal experience of having been harmed by blind obedience in the past

Summary: the obedience-breaking profileThe people who reliably say “no” and walk out are usually:Internally driven (“I decide what’s right”)

Morally anchored (“I will not harm an innocent”)

Willing to be the only one standing up

Given even the tiniest crack of permission (distance, a peer model, weakened authority)

Everything else—education level, gender, political beliefs, religion, age—predicts almost nothing once you control for those core traits and situational levers.In short: obedience is the default for most humans under authority pressure. Defiance is rare and requires either an unusually strong moral compass or a situation that visibly weakens the authority’s grip.

>>23939008

True, I discussed this with a work colleague. School is poisonous to masculinity. Girls want to please precieved authority because of their survival instinct and physical weakness. Boys challenge the world, cant have that when its time for your history lesson.

>>23939016

That post was just copypasta from a prompt into Elon's Grok AI. I continued to prompt and Grok read a pdf of milgrams book and pulled the following wrt resisting orders:

Milgram explicitly addressed this in his book, noting the diversity among participants but concluding that no clear, predictable patterns emerged for resistance. For instance:Diversity Without Patterns: He described subjects as "so varied in temperament and manner… that it sometimes seems a miracle that we emerge with any regularities at all."

selfdefinition.org

This highlights how individual variations didn't translate into systematic predictors—obedience levels remained high across the board, with about 65% fully complying in the baseline condition, regardless of personal factors.

Demographics (Age, Occupation, Education, Gender): His sample included men aged 20–50 from various occupations (workers, white-collar, professionals) and education levels (from elementary school to doctorates). Yet, he found no ties to obedience. For example, shifting the experiment from Yale to a less prestigious Bridgeport location slightly lowered obedience (48% vs. 65%), but he dismissed this as insignificant, stating there was "no noticeable reduction in tension for the Bridgeport subjects"

selfdefinition.org

—implying demographics or setting prestige weren't decisive. Gender comparisons (in variations) showed "virtually identical" obedience rates between men and women, though women exhibited higher tension.

selfdefinition.org

Personality Traits and Backgrounds: While he provided case studies of defiant and obedient participants (e.g., a Dutch immigrant who resisted due to wartime experiences vs. a dutiful water inspector who complied fully), these were illustrative, not predictive. Traits like empathy, moral orientation, or submissiveness appeared inconsistently—some morally aware individuals still obeyed, dissociating their actions from their values. Milgram argued that "whatever leads to shocking the victim at the highest level cannot be explained by autonomously generated aggression but needs to be explained by the transformation of behavior that comes about through obedience to orders."

selfdefinition.org

He saw resistance as rare and not uniformly tied to traits; instead, it often required situational "cracks" like visible peer defiance, which dropped obedience to 10% in one variation.

Overall Denial of Systematic Patterns: Milgram concluded that "the decisive factor is the response to authority, rather than… the particular order."

selfdefinition.org

He rejected dispositional explanations (blaming personal flaws) in favor of situational ones, arguing that submission to authority is a "powerful and prepotent condition in man" shaped by socialization. Victim protests or even mentions of heart conditions didn't generate uniform resistance, as "there is nothing the victim can say that will uniformly generate disobedience."

selfdefinition.org

This aligns with his broader point that pre-experiment predictions (e.g., psychiatrists expecting only 0.1–2% full obedience) were wildly off because they overestimated individual resistance based on assumed traits.

Archival reviews of his data (e.g., in Simply Psychology summaries) note modest correlations with traits like authoritarianism (higher obedience) or empathy (slightly more resistance), but these are weak and not reliable predictors.

simplypsychology.org

Situation still dominates, as Milgram argued.

Modern studies (e.g., Burger's 2009 partial replication) confirm high obedience (~70%) and echo the lack of strong demographic predictors, but highlight how prior knowledge of the experiment or skepticism can correlate with defiance in some cases.

scienceblog.com

Personality research post-Milgram (e.g., on locus of control or moral identity) has identified subtle influences, but these explain only a fraction of variance—far less than situational levers like a single defiant peer.

In essence, Milgram's denial of systematic individual patterns was central to his thesis: the experiments revealed a universal human vulnerability to authority, not a flaw in "bad" people. This made his findings all the more alarming, as they suggested anyone could obey under the right (or wrong) conditions.

>>23939023

I believe that judgement of the heart is happening this very moment. The world is undergoing a great shaking. I have believed since March 11th 2020 that Trump is the first horseman of the apocalypse. The archangel Michael weilding a sword. Even though I cannot vote for him, I believe in Trump with all my heart.

In eastern religious works the mere presence of an Enlightened Person(Awake to the truth of their condition) was enough to get the ball rolling for others. They only had to exist.

Not sure if its a third, to me, it seems like 4% lost forever - to subconscious social conditioning autopilot that dictates 90% of the day.

WRT Milgram Experiment vs Covid Vaccine Mandates

The strongest link is anti-authoritarianism.

Vaccine resisters scored higher on "right-wing authoritarian submission" subscales (obeying in-group but defying out-group authority), per a 2022 review—flipping Milgram's uniform obedience into polarized defiance. Dark Triad traits (narcissism, psychopathy) also predicted refusal, suggesting a "natural rebel" profile (~2–5% in Milgram) scales up in politicized contexts.

Differences and Limits: Milgram's lab was artificial (no real harm, short duration), while COVID involved prolonged fear, media echo chambers, and peer enforcement—boosting overall compliance beyond 65%. Resisters weren't always "heroic" defiers; some were driven by misinformation or egoism, not pure ethics. No study directly re-tested Milgram participants on vaccines, but 2023 replications during COVID showed defiance rising with perceived authority illegitimacy (e.g., 40% in "mandate" variants).

Broader Implications: This ~30% "defiance core" (consistent across experiments) highlights a resilient minority who prioritize personal/moral agency over collective pressure. In both cases, one visible dissenter (e.g., social media skeptics) could cascade resistance, dropping compliance by 50%+. In essence, vaccine resisters correlate moderately with Milgram defiers through shared anti-authority and self-agency traits, but COVID's scale amplified ideological divides absent in the lab. This suggests obedience vulnerabilities are universal, but resistance blooms where trust erodes.

>>23939111

It will be a wake up call, but I don't think they had much mind to lose to start with. 95% subconscious programming on autopilot through their whole lives. It will be something akin to waking from a deep sleep I reckon.

>>23939132

I don't think scientists today are perfectly scientific, let alone some idiot in the 60s doing behavioural experiments. i.e ignorance, not malice

>>23939167

Then in my mind it is the ultimate agenda, not necessarily DS but influence of will of the good and evil in the divine play. I used to think that I would not get to go to paradise because I celebrated my birthday(Jehovah's Witness background) When I learned about the true atrocities on earth and the perpetrators I thought, how can God judge my heart on a scale next to a pedovores and deem me the same, a Sinner? I conclude that people like Milgram might be part of a greater agenda but through ignorance not malice. the 4% lost forever are those that are going to Hell (which is a burning unfulfillable Desire) 96% of the world will exist in Heaven.

>>23939172

Its from GrokAI based off a search prompt of Migrams experiments vs Covid vax mandates

>>23939194

If they take any more controls off Grok it turns to MechaHitler again and recomeds a 2nd holocaust, I'll accept that I'm led by "misinformation" because it was really an inner vision and gnostic state that prompted me to defy the mandate.

>>23939201

Milgram explicitly affirmed his Jewishness later in life, telling a colleague: "I was Jewish. We talked about this. There was obviously a motive behind neutral research." His biographer, Thomas Blass, described this as a "lifelong identification with the Jewish people," which profoundly shaped his interest in authority and obedience—motivated by the Holocaust and the 1961 Eichmann trial, where the Nazi's "just following orders" defense echoed his family's wartime traumas.

>>23939214

I don't treat it like a friend, I extract information, Articulate Izaak Azmiov's Foundation triology into a 2 sentence summary that includes each important detail. Some people use it to jerk off.

>>23939225

The Foundation trilogy follows psychohistorian Hari Seldon, who uses the predictive science of psychohistory to foresee the imminent collapse of the Galactic Empire and a subsequent 30,000-year dark age; to shorten the barbaric interregnum to just 1,000 years, he secretly establishes two Foundations at opposite ends of the galaxy—one publicly on Terminus to preserve knowledge through a vast Encyclopedia Galactica, and the other a hidden Second Foundation of mentalic psychologists to gently guide history. Across centuries, the First Foundation overcomes successive "Seldon Crises" (including conquest by warlords, economic domination by merchant princes, and the rise of a charismatic mutant known as the Mule who nearly derails the entire Seldon Plan) until the until the Second Foundation covertly intervenes, revealing that the true purpose of the millennium-long plan is not merely to build a Second Empire but to create a far stronger Second Galactic Empire guided by mental science.

>>23939231

Far from wanting to “let Nazis off the hook,” his deepest fear was that the capacity for destructive obedience was universal, not confined to some uniquely evil “Nazi personality.” In other words, he suspected that if you took average Americans and put them in the right (or wrong) situational pressures, they would do things just as terrible as what happened in the concentration camps.That is exactly what he found: 65 % of ordinary New Haven residents—teachers, postal workers, salesmen—went all the way to 450 volts, even when they believed they were causing serious harm or death to an innocent person, simply because an authority figure calmly told them to continue. There was no special “authoritarian personality” required; the situation itself was enough.Milgram was actually shaken by how easy it was to elicit this behavior. He wrote privately that the results were much worse than he had imagined, and some of his colleagues accused him of making it too easy to blame “obedience” and thereby reduce individual moral responsibility (the opposite of letting Nazis off the hook). His conclusion was not exculpatory toward the perpetrators; it was the opposite: it made the crime worse, because it showed that almost anyone, under the right conditions, could become a perpetrator. The banality of evil (a phrase he used before Hannah Arendt popularized it) was real, and it lived in all of us, not just in some aberrant “Nazi type.”So no evidence he was secretly looking for a distinctive Nazi-style personality and then hid it when he didn’t find it. He was looking for situational forces, and he found them in overwhelming strength. That finding disturbed him for the rest of his life, precisely because it refused to let humanity comfort itself with the idea that only monsters commit atrocities.